Exploring the Effects of Working for Endowments on Behaviour in Standard Economic Games

In recent years, significant advances have been made in understanding the adaptive (ultimate) and mechanistic (proximate) explanations for the evolution and maintenance of cooperation. Studies of cooperative behaviour in humans invariably use economic games. These games have provided important insights into the mechanisms that maintain economic and social cooperation in our species. However, they usually rely on the division of monetary tokens which are given to participants by the investigator. The extent to which behaviour in such games may reflect behaviour in the real world of biological markets – where money must be earned and behavioural strategies incur real costs and benefits – is unclear. To provide new data on the potential scale of this problem, we investigated whether people behaved differently in two standard economic games (public goods game and dictator game) when they had to earn their monetary endowments through the completion of dull or physically demanding tasks, as compared with simply being given the endowment. The requirement for endowments to be ‘earned’ through labour did not affect behaviour in the dictator game. However, the requirement to complete a dull task reduced cooperation in the public goods game among the subset of participants who were not familiar with game theory. There has been some effort to test whether the conclusions drawn from standard, token-based cooperation games adequately reflect cooperative behaviour ‘in the wild.’ However, given the almost total reliance on such games to study cooperation, more exploration of this issue would be welcome. Our data are not unduly worrying, but they do suggest that further exploration is needed if we are to make general inferences about human behaviour from the results of structured economic games

The evolution of cooperation, especially in humans

I develop social evolution theory to study the evolution of cooperation as follows: (1) Many organisms undergo a dispersal phase prior to breeding; I demonstrate that knowing ones dispersal status aids the evolution of helping (by non-dispersers) and harming (by dispersers). (2) Policing driven by group-benefits may be selected to enforce cooperation in human and animal societies. I extend existing theory to show that policing may be harder to evolve that previously thought, but that it is maintained more readily than it evolves. (3) Archeological and anthropological evidence suggests that warfare was prevalent during our evolution. I show that, contrary to previous suggestions, between-group competition can favour any social behaviour (pro-social or anti-social) so long as it helps the group compete, and that such traits can be altruistic or mutually beneficial. (4) Reproductive leveling is analogous to policing; in the human literature there is doubt as to whether it can evolve. I extend my previous work to consider the coevolution of culturally and genetically inherited traits for reproductive leveling and selfishness. I find that cooperation can evolve between non-kin if they share the same culture. (5) Monogamy is thought to favour the evolution of cooperative breeding. I show that in the simplest case, because of the cost of competition between non-dispersing siblings, the level of promiscuity has little or no effect on the evolution of cooperation. (6) Spatial structure (limited dispersal) is thought to favour the evolution of inter-specific mutualisms as it aligns the partners’ interests. I consider the case of plant-fungi mutualisms and show that spatial structure can disfavour cooperation if it limits the potential fungal partners available to the plant

SL_ms_final_results_d_mechanisms_of_social_learning

Copy of SPSS analyses for Results Section

SL_ms_final_results_Si_ESM

Copy of SPSS analyses for Results Section ES

The evolution of cooperation, especially in humans

I develop social evolution theory to study the evolution of cooperation as follows: (1) Many organisms undergo a dispersal phase prior to breeding; I demonstrate that knowing ones dispersal status aids the evolution of helping (by non-dispersers) and harming (by dispersers). (2) Policing driven by group-benefits may be selected to enforce cooperation in human and animal societies. I extend existing theory to show that policing may be harder to evolve that previously thought, but that it is maintained more readily than it evolves. (3) Archeological and anthropological evidence suggests that warfare was prevalent during our evolution. I show that, contrary to previous suggestions, between-group competition can favour any social behaviour (pro-social or anti-social) so long as it helps the group compete, and that such traits can be altruistic or mutually beneficial. (4) Reproductive leveling is analogous to policing; in the human literature there is doubt as to whether it can evolve. I extend my previous work to consider the coevolution of culturally and genetically inherited traits for reproductive leveling and selfishness. I find that cooperation can evolve between non-kin if they share the same culture. (5) Monogamy is thought to favour the evolution of cooperative breeding. I show that in the simplest case, because of the cost of competition between non-dispersing siblings, the level of promiscuity has little or no effect on the evolution of cooperation. (6) Spatial structure (limited dispersal) is thought to favour the evolution of inter-specific mutualisms as it aligns the partners’ interests. I consider the case of plant-fungi mutualisms and show that spatial structure can disfavour cooperation if it limits the potential fungal partners available to the plant

Data from: Social learning and the demise of costly cooperation in humans

Humans have a sophisticated ability to learn from others, termed social learning, which has allowed us to spread over the planet, construct complex societies, and travel to the moon. It has been hypothesized that social learning has played a pivotal role in making human societies cooperative, by favouring cooperation even when it is not favoured by genetical selection. However, this hypothesis lacks direct experimental testing, and the opposite prediction has also been made, that social learning disfavours cooperation. We experimentally tested how different aspects of social learning affect the level of cooperation in public-goods games. We found that: (i) social information never increased cooperation and usually led to decreased cooperation; (ii) cooperation was lowest when individuals could observe how successful individuals behaved; and (iii) cooperation declined because individuals preferred to copy successful individuals, who cooperated less, rather than copy common behaviours. Overall, these results suggest that individuals use social information to try and improve their own success, and that this can lead to lower levels of cooperation